Ender's Game was recommended to me by one of my students who thought it shared many themes with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a personal favorite. So within a day of the rec, despite the fact that I was already reading three other books, I headed down to Natick and picked up a copy and proceeded to devour it in about two days. Which brings up the obvious:
1. I liked it enough to mow my way through it.
2. It had the kind of depth that allows for two day devouring sessions.
No doubt, this is an A+ storyteller's tale, complete with a "chosen one," the "fate of mankind," space battles, political intrigue, genetic development with the sole purpose of serving humankind at large (BNW-much?), and the path of 6 year-old said chosen one through 6 years of schooling that ultimately results in heroics. The form was very good, and the "unseen" narrators who opened each chapter by updating us on the administration's perception of Boy-Wonder's progress was nice MO for the book. The famous "BattleRoom" from Ender's (protagonist's) early years is endlessly inventive, the Star Battle Simulator from his later years is equally brilliant, and OSC's ability to combine the camaraderie of the military with the idiocy of young boys is spot on. These all quality points, the story is definitely gripping, and I would not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of sci-fi or this style of tale-telling.
(If I had a dollar for every time I've typed) That said (I could own the town of Abilene), the book leaves a lot of gaping holes. The fantasy game that Ender plays throughout the novel, and it's ridiculous connection to the buggers, is not an effective plot device, and worse, is bad writing. Not necessarily horrible, but it's fantasy-genre, and it combined with the frequent descriptions of Ender's dreams just look bad next to some rather great Sci-Fi writing. Ender's family, also, is rather dubiously portrayed, and I think that there's no real development of Ender's standing as a "Third" (the new civilization has a cap on two kids per family, and Ender is an exception to that rule as an allowed third kid, hence "third") to start the novel. His relationship with Peter (his brother) is fairly well done if a little harped on, and the very bizarre scene where Peter kisses Ender in bed and tells him that he loved him after having threatened his life pages before is left very much dangling for the course of the story. Ender's love for Valentine is forced and arbitrary (aside from the fact that they shared a common enemy as children) and unless there's supposed to be some implied sister-lustage, I don't think "Valentine as Ender's reason for reason" is really a plausible concept (gravity rooms and the other trapping of sci-fi aside). And, for the record, I think the Valentine / Peter plot that shines bright for one chapter and then fades into nothingness as we refocus on Ender is an oddly empty plot device. I mean that it seems cheap to start Peter and Val on some bizarre and thoroughly complicated mission, flash away to Ender and describe his life over the next year and then throw in a "By the way, Peter and Val got the job done" when it's next convenient. I think if you open that parallel plotline, especially with members of the same family running both ends, it's dishonest to clamp one off just as fast. The book was, in fact, only 226 large print pages long, and covered 6 years in a short span: 30 extra pages to further develop P & V's actions would not have been a crime.
Also, like many sci-fi or horror books I've read, I found the post-conclusion conclusion (I don't want to give any endings away, but it has the classic Lord of the Rings close where the story ends but they have to resolve all the issues with an anticlimactic coda) to be very tiring and a big letdown, not to mention possibly the worst-paced writing of the book - I could almost palpably read "Just wrap the stuff up already" between the lines. In retrospect, that may be why I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth, because the book dropped off a cliff so fast in quality towards its end.
Speaking of ruining ending - thanks a lot, cover jacket designer, who gave away the key twist to the entire story. Gracias. So i have no way of knowing whether it was predictable (actually, I do think it was), but I'll try not to give it away. Now. On the plus side, there were some other cliched sci-fi plot twists that, for what it's worth, were nicely pulled off.
What am I taking from this book? That sci-fi is a limiting genre. Almost necessarily, if the action is focused upon (which again, was superb in this book), you have to race through character development to keep up the pace. So it may just be a necessary evil, but it still doesn't give me entirely what I'm looking for in a great novel. I will also take away Ender's meticulous observation of games and strategy and his cool, measured analysis of what actions would have what effects - that aspect of the book actually did seep into my brain to an extent, and oddly enough, seems to have sharpened by focus strategy-wise on the Ulti-field. Huh, weird. And finally, it's another fine addition to the catalog of man's freedom, man's destiny, the battle of violence and efficiency vs. value and empathy - not the most thorough take ever, and too much telling instead of showing for my taste, but I appreciate such heady concepts in a genre that many call "pure entertainment."
So, a good, entertaining read. And it teaches you to manipulate those around you and look for the best strategy in all situations, taboot.
*P.S. - I read the OSC intro - and I have to throw out there that he's a little full of crap. I appreciate his success, but he gives a very authoritative stance on "good writing is supposed to be good storytelling, and should furthermore be illustrative, imaginative and not based on hard reality." It's a rather grandiose statement to make (and not, btw, back up), plus he makes some snide comments about the literati and what a waste of time reading to enjoy verbal fireworks actually is, and he claims that good stories are not difficult to penetrate if they are actually good, that's really just an elitist technique, etc.. I'd be the first (well, maybe the 24th) to call out verbal masturbation when I see it, but to say that difficult writing is de facto bad and the only real quality writing is the stuff you can devour in two days without thinking about it too much...
Well, that's like, your opinion, man.
No comments:
Post a Comment